Germans reject carbon capture....
NOT in my backyard...
It was meant to be the world's first demonstration of a technology that could help save the planet from global warming – a project intended to capture emissions from a coal-fired power station and bury them safely underground.
But the German carbon capture plan has ended with CO2 being pumped directly into the atmosphere, following local opposition at it being stored underground.
The scheme appears a victim of "numbyism" – not under my backyard.
Opposition to the carbon capture plan has contributed to a growing public backlash against renewable energy projects, raising fears that Europe will struggle to meet its low-carbon commitments. Last week, the Danish firm Vestas blamed British "nimbies" opposing wind farms for its decision to close its turbine factory on the Isle of Wight.
Many countries continue to use coal for generating power as it is the cheapest and most readily available fuel in the world. It will probably power the development of China and India. But coal is also seen as the dirtiest fuel. So, Vattenfall's Schwarze Pumpe project in Spremberg, northern Germany, launched in a blaze of publicity last September, was a beacon of hope, the first scheme to link the three key stages of trapping, transporting and burying the greenhouse gases.
The Swedish company, however, surprised a recent conference when it admitted that the €70m (£60.3m) project was venting the CO2 straight into the atmosphere. "It was supposed to begin injecting by March or April of this year but we don't have a permit. This is a result of the local public having questions about the safety of the project," said Staffan Gortz, head of carbon capture and storage communication at Vattenfall. He said he did not expect to get a permit before next spring: "People are very, very sceptical."
posted by GayandRight @ 9:33 AM
4 Comments:
People need to ask more questions.
Why underground and not in (portable) storage tanks where it can be compressed?
Whenever someone would mention capture and storage, that is what I always envisioned to what they meant by it.
Not putting it underground.
"its decision to close its turbine factory on the Isle of Wight."
Couldn't they figure a way to place the farms on water?
I've heard of such things being done already. whether they are being done right would be another question.
What I also don't get is how people can be so damn zealous against a "green house gas".
If the discovery channel says that 10% of the worlds Co2 comes from cows, then how can anyone be taking this stuff so seriously that they're willing to stoop to all sorts of craziness to "stop" it.
How is it considered such a "dangerous" "pollutant"?
The "science" pro-porting it to be so isn't clear or is even scant in actual scientific detail.Much of which is based on false assumptions to begin with, along with miscalculations and other data anomalies that just don't add up.
Wind mills, schwind mills!! One nuclear generator will provide the power of 6000 wind mills, and that's not even a huge one.
Nuclear waste? About the size of a small auto Vs. About the size of a one mile mountain of carbon from a coal generator.
Go Nuke!!!
I am pro nuclear power if it is done right.
It's not something governments should be stingy on.
The cost usually scares governments away.
Now regarding waste, here something interesting I read from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Comparing_radioactive_waste_to_industrial_toxic_waste
Funny thing is, you hear a lot of people complaining about how the "radio active waste will be around for hundreds if not thousands of years"... but wait a minute... wheres the science to back that up? It is clearly theoretical since its not like nuclear radio active waste has been around for hundreds or thousands of years for anyone to even make such claims.
And since when does science stop there and treat an issue like its unsolvable?
Even if one scientist or group can't figure his way around it doesn't mean all hope is lost.
For all the talk of the world as we know it ending do to "climate change", they sure don't care to explore all possible options or even viable solutions like nuclear.
It's not like if governments we to go more nuclear that they would stop all interest in other options just because things are temporary solved.
It's also not like anyone is up to their knees in nuclear waste.
"They" say it could be 100 years before scientists figure out a way to deal with nuclear waste.
Bull crap. This isn't the 20th century anymore, look at how much tech has changed in only 20 or so years and with the advent of the internet, anything is now possible.
Given the inter exchange of research and information across the globe they can't keep using the same old arguments against nuclear power.
Especially since its mostly against dated nuclear power plants that they use for talking points against what could be possible in the future.
Technology has come a long way since the disasters of the past.
Its often the people in denial who have to catch up.
^tao_taier. Check the IP stamp.
The first anon was me as well.
@Staffan Gortz, head of carbon capture and storage communication at Vattenfall: "This is a result of the local public having questions about the safety of the project."
And, maybe, your inability to answer those questions satisfactorily?
Reminds me of a certain politician who demonizes the people asking questions about policy for questioning the policy in the first place.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home